TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed: Acquittal Upheld for Insufficient Evidence in Cheque Bounce Case</h1> <h3>H.R. Nagarathna Versus Jayashree Prasad</h3> The High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant alleged that a loan repayment cheque ... - Issues involved: Challenge to the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.Issue 1: Allegation of cheque dishonour and legal challengeThe appellant challenged the acquittal of the accused u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the cheque issued by the accused towards repayment of a loan was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant contended that the cheque was obtained as security for the loan and its dishonour constituted an offence.Issue 2: Interpretation of legal principlesThe court examined previous decisions regarding cheques issued as security for repayment of loans. It was noted that the liability of the accused in such cases depends on the existence of an unpaid debt as per agreed terms, with implied instructions for deferred presentation of the cheque.Issue 3: Discrepancies in evidence and legal implicationsThe court analyzed the evidence presented by the complainant and the accused regarding the nature of the loan, the pronote, and the cheque issued. Discrepancies were found in the complainant's case, where she claimed the cheque was for repayment while stating in cross-examination that it was issued as security.Issue 4: Burden of proof and legal standardsThe court emphasized the complainant's burden to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt at the time of the cheque issuance beyond reasonable doubt. It was highlighted that the accused's defense need not be proven beyond reasonable doubt, shifting the burden of proof to the complainant.Conclusion:Based on the analysis of evidence, legal principles, and precedents, the court concluded that the complainant failed to prove the existence of the loan and the purpose of the cheque issuance beyond reasonable doubt. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the acquittal order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
